A Bernal Heights single-family (with in-law in the basement) sales comp in May of 2006 at $980,000, 61 Fair Avenue was bought back by the bank in December of 2008 for $949,862 (suggesting a bit less than 20% was put down).

Tenant occupied with “protection status undetermined” (which could have dashed some dreams). Back on the market today and asking $760,000.

Comments from “Plugged-In” Readers

I recall the cognitive dissonance of being told that small worn out houses on Bernal were worth a million when I wanted to write an offer for far less.
“It’s an up and coming area.”
“Cortland Street is attracting a lot of high earning professionals”
“Get in now before Bernal becomes like Noe”
And sure ‘nuf, places were selling for millions. I started thinking that I’d lost touch with reality.
$565k seems a lot more realistic.

leaving aside the complicated issue of who will actually swallow the loss, it is interesting to see this statement:The bank isn’t stupid; they are going to start taking what they can get to minimize their losses IMO.
in a thread for a property where they issued a $949,862 loan with 3% down. any smart financiers want to give me $1M loan with $500K as collateral?

Banks weren’t stupid previously either. They knew very well that any losses would be backstopped by the taxpayer. Risk free investing via the buddy system.
Banks will start taking reasonable offers because they see where the market is going and they wish to be as liquid as possible. Their book losses will be covered by us anyway.

“What about the protected tenants? If they were a part of the deal, I can see why a 42% drop occurred.”
If there are any protected tenants they would have been a factor in the 2006 sale as well, right?

narrow house, and if they built interior walls in that direction, it would provide for tiny rooms… so in that direction they needed more shearwalls and the exterior walls were the only place they could have them

Backstopped by the taxpayer? Roughly speaking the US bubble is wiping out around six trillion dollars of conjured value. The government is trying to moderate the impact of the correction by throwing around one trillion dollars into the firestorm. That means that the amount covered by the taxpayer is significant, but that amount is still covering less than one fifth of the losses which must be absorbed by banks. Banks are still teetering at the edge, going under, or becoming zombies. The taxpayer couldn’t cover this even if there were someone who wanted them to do that.

@jessep: are you f—ing seriuos?
“Protected tenants? Tsk tsk tsk.
It oughta be your right to buy the building, and kick them out on their ass.”
“protected” means they are either elderly or have a terminal illness of some kind. You’re a freaking snot-nosed obnoxious punk, is what you are. You’re the one who ought to be put outdoors on your kiester to think about morality for a while.

Actually the definition of “protected” is much broader than suggested by WTF. If someone is in some way “disabled” they can be protected; and disability is defined very broadly, someone can be active and working, yet claim disability for these purposes. And, in any case, merely because someone is over 65 or disabled does that mean that someone else should have to subsidize them? If they are truly poor, a government program might be appropriate but why the burden should fall entirely on the property owner is unclear to me.

not to start a debate about basic consumer and tenant protections, but it is a fundamental misunderstanding and myth that eviction protections of tenants is somehow a “subsidy” by the landlord. That’s absolutely preposterous. Real estate is priced according to its attributes — whoever buys this property buys it at a discount based on the presence of the tenants — i.e. the building price is discounted. So the the buyer is getting a discount. No tenant, higher price accordingly. There is no subsidy at all. And the tenant moved in at market price at whatever price the seller wanted at that time. There is no subsidy! The fact that real estate may have appreciated during the years the tenant has lived there does NOT mean the landlord is “subsidizing” the tenant, it just means that the landlord cannot take advantage of unearned windfall of the market. There is no “burden” being put on anyone and no one is subsidizing anyone. It’s amazing how this nonsense is perpetuated.

reader – your argument that the rental value of a property has been already priced in only makes sense if today’s rent control laws existed since the beginning of time in SF.
Instead rent control has been legislated incrementally, and in fairly recent history.
You say that the effects of rent control affect a property’s price, presumably negatively. That I agree with. So a property owner who bought prior to any rent control laws (1960s ?) paid a higher price compared to what would have been paid had RC already existed.
As each RC law incrementally protects a wider range of tenants with deeper protections, rental properties incrementally fall in value. The act of passing RC laws reduces the future resale value of rental properties, especially those properties that include protected tenants. The effect is not immediate and takes a while to diffuse into the market as more and more buyers understand the impact of rent control on the revenue stream.
I’m not taking sides for or against rent control. Just highlighting that RC does indeed transfer wealth from landlords to tenants and in effect forces property owners to deliver a subsidy.

I’m not taking sides for or against rent control. Just highlighting that RC does indeed transfer wealth from landlords to tenants and in effect forces property owners to deliver a subsidy.
Here is a handy guide: A –> B means that wealth is flowing from A to B.
Prop 13 tax-basis restrictions: new owners–> old owners
(obvious)
Prop 13 rate caps: poor –> wealthy
(as state funding is more regressive)
Mortgage Interest deduction: tenants –> old homeowners
Mortgage Interest deduction: new homeowners –> banks
(it drives prices up)
Cap gains tax break on sales: tenants —> homeowners
Rent Control Changes: old sellers –> new buyers
(new buyers can buy with the restrictions priced in, but the old buyers could not)
Rent Control: new tenants –> long-time tenants
(new tenants pay more to mitigate risk of becoming long-time tenants)
Fannie/Freddie Bailouts: renters –> owners
(greasing that GSE money)
Agency bailouts: public –> banks
Rent Control: unlucky landlords –> all other landlords
Oh, what a tangled web we leave! I would ditch all of it, but whenever I try to get people to agree with me, they always object to one or two of those arrows being removed…

Robert, best post ever.
Should be required reading and posted at the start of every thread.
My step dad (a pastor) has a great sermon about how people always complain when things are unfair and they feel they are getting the short end of the stick, but never complain when they are the ones benefitting from that unfairness.

Great post, Robert. I’d like to offer my own take on:
“Mortgage Interest deduction: tenants –> old homeowners
Mortgage Interest deduction: new homeowners –> banks
(it drives prices up)”
I’d argue the proper diagram is:
Mortage Interest deduction:
public (because the tax base is reduced) –> mortgagee (reduced taxes)
new mortgagee –> mortgage-holding banks (because (1) homes are more expensive when a mortgage interest deduction exists, which means more interest is paid, and (2) the demand curve for mortgages shifts, because the interest is tax-deductible, so the equilibrium interest rate is higher)
(rare) new mortgagee –> old seller (i.e., seller who has owned since before the mortgage interest deduction was instituted) (extremely rare, I assume)
low-income homeowners –> high-income homeowners (because the high-income homeowner is in a higher tax bracket and also more likely to itemize deductions than the low-income homeowner, yet both the low-income and high-income homeowner paid for their homes with the mortgage interest deduction priced in; as a partial counter-effect, however, more expensive homes, which are more likely to be purchased by high-income buyers, will get a higher boost in sales price as a result of the existence of the mortgage interest deduction)
The general net result is: public –> banks, which is not captured in Robert’s diagram.
Because, generally speaking, owners are net not particularly affected by the mortgage interest deduction, I also would argue that tenants are not particularly affected by the mortgage interest deduction.

the biggest f—ing subsidy is the mortgage interest deduction. All renters nationwide are massively subsidizing through their income taxes the housing and real estate investments of the propertied folks. It’s outrageous, and in general it’s a massive wealth transfer to the wealthier classes.

it’s a massive wealth transfer to the wealthier classes.
I know a few renters in the BA that are wealthier than many home-owers! This tax credit sometimes amounts to giving welfare to poor Ponzi victims.

Has anyone kept up with the proposal (or was it already passed) to cap the mortgage interest deduction? What are the details, when does it kick in, does it apply to current homeowners as well as future buyers (I would hope), etc.? Sorry to be lazy — just hoping someone happens to know this. It would seem this should effect further price decreases at the high (or middle for SF proper) end (i.e., ~$900k and up) — which would then presumably filter down.

I know a few renters in the BA that are wealthier than many home-owers!
So does everyone. Everyone also knows a great manty renters who are poorer than homeowners. From now on I will counter every painfully obvious thing you say with another painfully obvious statement. How does that sound?

Thanks Fronzi. No panic here. As a current renter with no plans to buy for at least a year (or significantly more depending on how things go), I’d prefer it did pass. A higher tax base plus lower home prices strikes me as win-win. But I can certainly see how this would cause panic for someone stretching to make payments on a $2M home on half a mil income.

332 College Avenue, a 3br 1.5 ba St. Mary’s Park 1475 sq ft property on Bernal’s South Slope would beg to differ with that redesignation, EBGuy. It was listed for 829K and it went for 880 in about three weeks. As long as some of these higher dollar amount sales continue to occur I’d refrain from speaking so definitively, “is facing” etc.

It’s been pointed out many times that what a property [is listed for] vs what it sells at has no relevance whatsoever. That’s why socketsite uses “apples” to try to tease out trends.
Anonn, I’m not saying you’re wrong, just that you are neither “right”. You have proven that one property sold for “over asking”.

Look, I told you what happened. Was it or was it not new factual information to you? Saying the list price and the sale price flatly as I did only portrays its market. It only absolutely indicates that one buyer was in rather a hurry. But your comment from afar of the strategy — or lack thereof — behind the list price is merely an opinion. Are you familiar enough with St. Mary’s Park to really even hazhard a guess as to true value? I doubt it, but if you want my opinion, 829K for that area would have also probably been more than acceptable. However I did not say that in the first place. I stated it flatly. You didn’t need to say a word there really now did you.

anonn, I specifically use the REO ratio* to avoid these types of discussions. Once the REO ratio hits one or greater, the neighborhood is removed from Real SF (Bernal is almost there). I challenge anyone to find a region in the Bay Area (SF included) that has hit a REO ratio greater than 1 and not experienced at least 20% declines several months later. Bernal looks like a total disaster regarding foreclosures — except for one area on a north slope where a certain real estate professional’s clients were able to eek out a gain on a recent sale of a house that was bought in 2007.
*REO ratio = homes in foreclosure (NODs,NOTS, bank owned)/(homes for sale)

NJ,
How could I forget the banks? Indeed, you can draw many other arrows as well, and many will point to banks. It wasn’t meant to be an exhaustive list.
But I disagree that the mortgage index deduction drives the equilibrium interest rate higher. First, there is no evidence of this happening, which typically doesn’t bother most economists — few would even bother to look at the data before assuming that it did 🙂 Nevertheless, the spread between 10 year treasuries and mortgage rates should be higher after the deduction was introduced, and there is no detectable change in that spread.
The reason is there is no “supply” of funds for mortgages — banks create money and loan it out, and the profits are determined by the spread between the interest received (net of defaults) the banks own cost of capital in order to have sufficient short term cash funding and an adequate capital base.
So instead of thinking in terms of a limited pool of funds, you should think in terms of this spread. Now what happens when demand for borrowing increases? Well, if the borrowing is for assets like houses, then default rates fall as prices rise (no one defaults if they can sell for a profit), which means that the spread increases, meaning that the banks make even more money and are happy to loan out more. You might assume that the banks’ cost of funds should go up, but you need to keep in mind that there is great slack there — a bank only needs a small fraction of its asset base to meet short-term cash needs, and a bank can loan out great multiples of its capital base. And banks are very skillful at expanding that slack if they believe there are profits to be had. See how effectively they circumvented regulatory capital requirements by introducing off balance sheets entities and securitization. Moreover securitization allows investors to also directly supply loanable funds, and again when prices go up, defaults fall, and investors are willing to charge a lower rate. So the combination of these is that the banks’ cost of capital falls while the interest received increases in response to increased borrowing demand — at least for assets that can be resold at a higher price.
The same dynamic was in the LBO lending boom in the Reagan Era (and the subsequent banking crisis of the early 1990s).
Of course, eventually it all comes crashing down, but as Keynes said, it’s better for a banker to be wrong and in the majority than to be right and in the minority. This is just another example of why financial markets — really prediction markets — are not like the markets for actual goods and services. With prediction markets, nothing brings out buyers like high prices, and nothing increases supply more than increased demand.Because, generally speaking, owners are net not particularly affected by the mortgage interest deduction,
Again, only if you ignore what actually happens — that the world is dynamic. The mortgage interest deduction caused a lending boom and higher prices, but this did not occur over night. It was a process that took about 4 years, during which time house prices rose higher than they otherwise would, which led to a bust — a national housing recession that was steeper than any previous bust since the great depression (up until our current bust), and this also took about 6 years. So there are many winners/losers in that sense.
Greater leverage will create greater volatility and this will cause large and long term booms and busts. Rather than thinking in terms of a new “equilibrium”, think in terms of a less stable market generally. Incomes always rise and fall, and if the price/income multiple is higher, then this means that prices will rise and fall much more than they otherwise would if less leverage was used. Add to that a feedback loop in that income is also derived from asset prices.
Moreover, if households are incentivized to pay as much interest as possible, then this means that the price declines are less cushioned by their own capital base (the equity in the house), meaning more bankruptcies/short sales than would otherwise be the case.
These adjustments take a long time, so there are many winners and losers — too hard to draw all those arrows. Eventually, housing, which used to be thought of as a source of stability, becomes a more risky and speculative investment. Another arrow.I also would argue that tenants are not particularly affected by the mortgage interest deduction.
Indeed they are! Think of it this way, if you are landlord, you don’t get the deduction. Whereas if you are a prospective buyer doing a buy-rent analysis, then you need to factor in the deduction.
This means that the renter’s housing consumption dollar is worth less to developers and other housing suppliers than the owner’s consumption dollar. And in the market, everyone votes according to how many dollars they have. This absolutely effects renters in that the market does not respond to their needs as much as would be the case without the deduction, and this includes things like under-allocating total housing resources to renters as well as being able to quickly respond to changing needs of renters (e.g. smaller/larger house sizes as household sizes change, etc.).
Now, in the specific example of California, those effects are partially offset by prop 13, which incentivizes people to hang onto property and thus turn it over to rental stock rather than selling when its time to move, but even in this case, investors over-allocate resources to providing owner-occupied dwellings and condominiums than to things like rental houses and building apartment complexes, and many renters on this board will tell you that there are fewer options available to renters and quality is general lower for rental stock as a result.

College is a nice stretch of Bernal. I always enjoy walking there. Yards are always well kept and the owners look like they care about their properties.
314 College sold at the top of the bubble in december 2007 for 1.04M with 1,250 official sf. I don’t know if it’s a good comp of if footage is accurate but it places this property at 832/sf with what’s at our disposal. 800+ looks a bit bubbly for a sub-Noe plan-C area.
Fwiw 332 sold for 592/sf… I have no idea if we can really compare the 2, but these are not-so-random facts that can help us understand what’s going on there. I’d say there’s a bit of bubble value deflated there, but 880 is still a pretty good price and ~600/sf definitely shows Bernal still attracts some buyers.
Another data point:
Zillow still has the old listing for 332 College:http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/332-College-Ave-San-Francisco-CA-94112/2137413459_zpid/
You gotta love Zillow. I don’t know what kind of business they run, but timeliness is not their forte.
From the original posting I quote:Renovated kitchen and pantry with eat in area.
Last sold in 2001. The (minor?)renovation most probably happened since that date. I guess not an apple.

“Bernal Heights is facing imminent eviction from the Real SF. Currently 54 foreclosures (NODs, NOTS, bank owned) to 58 properties for sale. Pent up supply continues to grow.”
EBGuy — where do you get the # of foreclosures for a city / neighborhood?

Here’s an “up and coming” foreclosure in the College Ave. neighborhood brought to you by innovative financial products from World Savings Bank (and follow on refi’s?). The 1400sq.ft. home at 114 Genebern Way was bought for $625k in 2002; according to Yahoo!RealEstate, a NOD was filed recently for $611,352. A query of the SF Recorder’s website shows that the owners appear to have interests in other SF properties (not that there’s anything wrong with that).

A little primer about St. Mary’s Park: http://www.stmaryspark.com/history.html
Yeah College is a nice street albeit more narrow than you’d like. Nice lawns, a neighborhood that truly feels as if it was planned well, etc. But it’s the south slope and more, sort of neither Bernal nor Glen Park. It’s windwept and cold pretty often and there’s lots of 280 noise too. That said I like it and I think people who don’t know about it tend to be pleasantly surprised. Yes 880K is off peak, but I’d put this one at around 950K peak. I don’t think there was more than another one or two ~1M sales other than the one you mentioned. IMO it’s hardly teetering on the brink like EBGuy was talking about. So that’s why I asked for a bit of circumspection instead of bombast.

I agree there’s something pretty special about this street. It feels like a protected island coming straight from the Mission mess. It doesn’t really belong in Bernal style-wise which makes it even more unique. I also did not have the straight-on-the-freeway feel that you get in easternmost South of Crescent.

RealtyTrac show 447 Justin Drive (a bit closer to the freeway but still St. Mary’s Park) has a date at the courthouse steps on Sept. 11 (the NOTS was filed in Dec. 2008) for $592k. Bought for $740,500 in Jan. 2006. Bring your checkbooks if you’re interested in this 3bed/2bath (1,145 sq.ft.) home in a “special” part of Bernal. I joke; I too was pleasantly surprised with the feel of the neighborhood. Once again, IF you’re buying in Ess Eff, anonn is the man.

For all the flak that he gets (some of which he fishes for) anonn/fluj definitely knows his stuff when it comes to specific listings.
In all seriousness, I will definitely consider contacting him in 2012 when there is no longer any RealSF left and it is time dig up the gold burried in the back yard of my rent controlled apartment and buy something from the newly consolidated AmericanObamaMae Insurance Group Real Estate Asset Liquidation(REAL)in San Francisco (SF) Program.

Lets see… here’s a nice condo (3/2, 1551 sq.ft., new construction). Its at 4005 Mission, but still only two blocks to the blue-skies of College Ave. Looks like they used 90% financing; its scheduled to be taken back by the bank on Sept. 23 for $727,690.
And there’s always 267 Bonview (1460 sq.ft.) around the block from Elsie. Will be curious to follow this one and see if it ends up on the auction block as it has an interesting history (death->inheritance->equity extraction->NOD->foreclosure?). Countrywide appears to be the lender that provided the helping hand. I could go on, but would quickly tire out as every house for sale in Bernal has a ‘foreclosure’ doppelganger.

‘foreclosure’ doppelganger — Doppelganger, eh?
So the 3/2 ~1500 foot Mission condo is a doppelganger of the Elsie property?
No, it isn’t. Hey you were the one who basically said critical mass is upon Bernal. And it clearly is not. A property got into contract for 1.4M yesterday. A Holly Park property sold for 1.3 (I think) last week. Are there foreclosures? Sure. Did people overextend? yeah, they did? Has the neighborhood undergone a gentrification that it’s unlikely to turn back from, causing prices to remain at levels never before seen? Yes, that’s true too. Your theory is binary. It needn’t be.

I have done so many times and will continue to do so. What does that have to do with my factual counterpoints to EBGuy’s critical mass theory? Nothing. EBGuy knows I live and own in Bernal. Of course I’m bullish on Bernal. When I bought it was the last bit of relatively central high ground in the city that wasn’t totally gentrified. It is not without its problems — which I frequently mention as well — and I wouldn’t have purchased here if I wasn’t.
Mind your own business. I’m not soliciting a thing. Least of all your shite opines.

224 Elsie a 3/2/1 with 1540 sq ft sold today for 938K, at 609 a foot.
Not too surprising as the median sales price per square foot for single family homes in 94110 is currently running around $604 per square foot. That’s down from $669 per square foot in 2008, and $707 per square foot in 2007.
So let’s call it a median price per square foot that hasn’t been seen since sometime between 2005 ($680) and 2004 ($560).

“Don’t slap medians onto individual properties.”
I don’t get your point. Can you explain? The ed. points out that this place sold right at the 2009 $/sf. It is a reasonable assumption to thus conclude that it is fairly representative of the mix for this zip. Sure, just an assumption, but a reasonable one. Two years ago, a place that was fairly representative of the mix and sold at the median $/sf would have fetched significantly more, about $707 per sf. Apples are a better indicator, but the ed’s point that this sale certainly cannot be touted as reflecting strength in the Bernal market is a valid one. It reflects continuing weakness and a declining trend.

So the 3/2 ~1500 foot Mission condo is a doppelganger of the Elsie property?
No, that would be 267 Bonview (with a little, uh, updating). Remember, the REO Ratio (whatever!) is a forward looking metric (as it include NODs and NOTS); we can do a postmortem exam of the neighborhood next year. As the REO Ratio has not yet hit one, I will even allow that Bernal could (miraculously) hold up buoyed by the strength of the SFW-like anti-foreclosure force field around College Ave, Holly Park, and the north slope. The historic trend, however, is not favorable. Five months ago the REO ratio stood at 1/3 for Bernal; now it’s almost one.

Confused, understand the editor used a ZIP code which includes a huge swatch of the eastern Mission, not just the neighborhood we were talking about, one. So already his counterpoint was off the mark. Two, the place lacks a half bath which would have easily gotten it over the 1M hump. Rare is the Bernal 2ba or less property, ~1550 sq ft or less, (especially without downtown views) that got 1M or more, regardless of year. An MLS search shows about 10 or so, ever, many of which appear to be quite a bit larger. I really don’t have the time to delve into permits pulled versus default tax records. So you can take my word for it, or take the guy who in his typically inaccurate and heavy handed (when it comes to anything remotely positive) fashion included the another neighborhood in what was purely a Bernal discussion. I care little.
FYI, all 47 Bernal 3brs 2 ba sold in 2006 — a year conspicuously absent from the editor’s [rebuttal] — have a median of 878K and 595 a foot. So are we $7 a foot higher than in 2006? I don’t think so, do you? So you see the danger of trying to go by statistics purely when it comes down to what the property actually is or is not.
[Editor’s Note: Keeping it apples to apples, the median price per square foot for single-family homes in 94110 was $657 in 2006 (which wasn’t intended to be conspicuously absent, we simply figured readers could figure out it was lower than 2007 and higher than 2004).
According to Redfin, the sold price per square foot for single-family homes in “Bernal” is down 2% on a year-over-year basis, down 17% versus end of August 2007, and down roughly 21% from a 2007 peak.
As always, we could care less if the data is “negative” or “positive,” we’re more concerned with providing context. And sorry, “houses are still expensive in San Francisco and will never be a buck” doesn’t count.]

“houses are still expensive in San Francisco and will never be a buck”
Nobody said that, except you, in a fake paraphrase of a fake statement. Nice one.“According to Redfin, the sold price per square foot for single-family homes in “Bernal” is down 2% on a year-over-year basis, down 17% versus end of August 2007, and down roughly 21% from a 2007 peak.”
Why is 2007 chopped up?

anonn, I still don’t understand your point: “the editor used a ZIP code which includes a huge swatch of the eastern Mission, not just the neighborhood we were talking about, one. So already his counterpoint was off the mark.”
But the house you mention was right at the 2009 median, and well below the 2007 median, for this zip code, which included that eastern Mission portion both in 2007 and 2009. I understand your point that medians don’t equate to any individual property because of differences in quality, etc. But in the case you’ve chosen as an example of market strength, it is right at the median $ per sf, suggesting it is a middling place and thus not of particularly low or high quality. And it sold at a price that is pretty well below the prevailing median $ per sf of two years ago. Again, this appears to be a good example of market weakness in this area. I suppose if you are arguing it is a total dump and it still fetched a price/sf that is below the 2007 median, that might support your position, albeit weakly. But I did not understand that to be your point.
Do you mind explaining what your point is with respect to this place?

I don’t follow why you think it’s OK to conflate ZIP codes with neighborhoods, confused. The south easternmost portion of that ZIP has been hit harder than Bernal Heights, for example. I also do not understand why you didn’t take my point about this property being above the 2006 median value. I also do not understand why you didn’t take my point that 3/2 properties without northern slope big downtown views rarely broke 999K, and that this property is pretty much par for the course, and therefore hardly a big negative indicator.

I’m not challenging you. I’m just trying to figure out what your point is. Just tell us. Is it that this sale illustrates market strength? Something else? I think the problem is that you’re giving us innuendo and rhetorical questions that I think are meant to support your thesis. But I cannot tell what your thesis is.
Your latest post illustrates what I mean. For example:
“The south easternmost portion of that ZIP has been hit harder than Bernal Heights, for example.”
But since this place sold at the 2009 median for the entire zip code, which includes those weak areas, this would seem to indicate, at least from this one sale, that Bernal HAS been hit as hard as these admittedly weaker areas.
“I also do not understand why you didn’t take my point about this property being above the 2006 median value.”
That does not appear to be the case. What “median value” are you using? Not the zip code, but what? Median sales price? Median $ per sf? Median 3/2 SFRs, sale price or $ per SF? For what geographic area? I’m just trying to figure out how broadly or finely you’re slicing it.
“I also do not understand why you didn’t take my point that 3/2 properties without northern slope big downtown views rarely broke 999K, and that this property is pretty much par for the course, and therefore hardly a big negative indicator.”
But neither did this place break 999k. “Par for the course” for what? 2006 prices? 2007? 2009? Something else? You tend to use shorthand, incomplete suggestions, and rhetorical questions in a manner that makes it impossible to determine what your point is. You slap the editor’s statistics. Fair enough, but the editor spelled out what he was using as a reference. But you aren’t providing anything in rebuttal other than these sorts of half responses.
[Editor’s Note:Apples To Apples (Aside From Any Other Analytics) In Bernal Heights.]

But since this place sold at the 2009 median for the entire zip code, which includes those weak areas, this would seem to indicate, at least from this one sale, that Bernal HAS been hit as hard as these admittedly weaker areas
I don’t think you understand the dynamic of mix.
I used median 3/2 sales.
I know this place did not break 999K. That’s precisely the point. It was probably never going to. The editor tried to say that this particular property was down from an over 700 a foot median. It wasn’t ever going to get that.
Why is that hard to understand?
I’ve given you enough, and wasted enough of my time. Digest it or not.
[Editor’s Note: No, the editor was simply using numbers to provide context and question your words “the neighborhood [has] undergone a gentrification that it’s unlikely to turn back from, causing prices to remain at levels never before seen.”]

Translation: Im really not eloquent enough to explain it further, and this lack of eloquence frustrates me
I think you meant succinct, Mac.
But “not eloquent”? That’s not a criticism often levied at yours truly. Disagree if you like, but my first point summed it up. Here is what happened: I was talking 3/2 Bernal Heights SFRs the whole time. They were asking me why 94110 2009 does not stack up with 94110 2007. I showed 3/2 Bernal SFRs from 2006, and it was better. Get it, Mac? That’s not difficult at all to digest. Now you may crawl back under your bridge if you like.

“I think you meant succinct, Mac.”
Frankly no.
Eloquent: 2. (of a person) able to speak in a fluent and persuasive manner
Smart people understand that when other smart people don’t understand them, that it’s their inability to explain, rather than the listener’s inability to understand that’s the problem.
It’s a common complaint here that you are not explaining yourself properly. Unlike, say, Satchel, Robert etc., who when faced with the same problem will re-explain at length without getting frustrated.
Maybe you’re smart. I think you are. But you’re rather childish.

“I showed 3/2 Bernal SFRs from 2006, and it was better.”
What are the medians for 2004, 2005, 2007, 2008 and 2009? You make a claim about the trend but don’t offer any data just words and insults as usual.
How many total sales in Bernal in 2006? Only 47 3/2’s? What’s that 10% of the total? That’s representative of the market?

What insults? I think I insulted one person here, and that was Fronzi because he deserved it as usual. Michael I chose 2006 because the editor left it out. Like I said. You can take your pick of insults thrown my way here too dude. Why do you feel compelled to speak whenever you see my name, Michael? I wish you would get another hobby. You don’t seem to talk in other threads, and it’s a little bit weird the way you just HAVE to always say something to me.
Mac, dictionary definitions of the word eloquent now? come on. Satchel and Robert are really long winded. If I had the time to sit and write 10 paragraph long treatises, I would. Not to mention the fact that this format is lousy for that type of writing. So I don’t do it. I strive for brief clear points and if I missed the mark this time then that’s my bad. If you look at the questions asked of me by Confused you’ll see that I answered them all.

Why does it matter if it’s 10 percent of the market or not? The example I brought up — the case in point — was a 3/2. So I looked toward other 3/2’s, and I explained why I chose one peak year, 2006. Why is that not worthwhile to you?
Should a 3/2 be compared against a 2/2? a 4 br 2 1/2? Why?
I keep asking people to put a fine point on things, to no avail. Y’all just want to talk macro numbers, purely. I don’t. What is the property, really? Where is it located? Somehow these things aren’t important in the world of Socketsite. Yet they are practically everything in real life.

“Should a 3/2 be compared against a 2/2? a 4 br 2 1/2? Why?”
Perhaps, if you’re talking about a smallish 3/2 vs. a large 2/2. Or a large 3/2 vs. a small 4/2.5. You can’t just use pure macro numbers and assume all 3/2s are not comparable to any 2/2 or any 4/2. Particularly on a $/sf basis.
This is just a variation of your “it’s all very micro, bro” line. That (il)logic is nothing but sophistry in an attempt to disregard the clear, measurable declining price trend by defining the market so narrowly that . . . voila . . . in THIS market prices have held up! That is not valid to anyone but a realtor (even the Sophists knew they were engaging in flawed reasoning).

Great. Now you’re here. Well you are wrong and lenders don’t view it that way. OK? The comps need to be like for like.
I’ll ignore your little insult ridden second stanza. Refer to the above, particularly the part about how you are wrong.

186 3 br 2bas sold since 2004 have been sold in Bernal. Average dollar per foot, 596. Median sales price 850K. So was I right, or was I right? Thanks in advance anon, michael, joe, mac, nonananon. You guys don’t have to email me and tell me how sorry you are again. It’s cool.